X Sues California Over AI Election Content Law, Challenging Free Speech Rights

· 1 min read

article picture

X Sues California Over AI Election Content Law, Citing Free Speech Concerns

Social media platform X has filed a lawsuit against California, challenging a new state law that requires platforms to regulate AI-generated election-related content. The company claims the legislation violates First Amendment protections.

The law in question, titled "Defending Democracy From Deepfake Deception Act of 2024," mandates social media companies to remove "materially deceptive" AI-generated content about elections and candidates within specific timeframes - 120 days before an election and 60 days after for content about election officials.

Under the law, platforms must also clearly label AI-generated "deepfake" content and establish systems for California residents to report non-compliant material.

In its federal court filing in Sacramento on Thursday, X argued that the law would result in broad censorship of political speech. The complaint emphasized that historically, speech criticizing government officials and political candidates has received strong First Amendment protections, even when potentially false.

The legal challenge follows a recent federal court decision that blocked a related California law (AB 2839) which would have allowed individuals to sue over election-related deepfakes. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez acknowledged AI and deepfakes pose risks but found the law likely violated constitutional free speech rights.

That injunction came after a creator of parody content, including modified audio of Vice President Kamala Harris, sued over potential censorship concerns.

While California Governor Gavin Newsom's office maintains these laws permit satire and parody but simply require disclosure of AI use, X's lawsuit represents growing tension between regulating AI-generated content and protecting free speech. The case emerges as many states across the country work to establish similar regulations around AI in elections.

The outcome of this legal battle could set precedents for how states approach the regulation of AI-generated political content while balancing First Amendment protections.